Building and Managing Relationships with Funders

[Audio] . TRANSFORMING ACCESS TO EXCELLENCE WITH SUCCESSFUL ALLIANCES OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIGITAL AGRICULTURE.

[Audio] Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining this session. Today, we are going to focus on a topic that is absolutely critical for anyone working in agricultural research, and that is how to build and manage relationships with funders. Now, in agriculture, research does not happen in isolation. It happens in real environments, fields, farms, and ecosystems, where uncertainty is always present. And because of that, funders are not just supporting ideas. They are supporting people, institutions, and partnerships that they believe can deliver results in complex conditions. So this session is not about writing better proposals. It is about understanding how to position yourself as a trusted, long-term partner, someone funders want to work with again and again..

[Audio] Let's start with context. Funding environments are becoming more competitive. There are more institutions, more interdisciplinary proposals, and more pressure to demonstrate impact. At the same time, expectations are higher. Funders want results that go beyond publications. They want real-world impact, especially in agriculture, where research directly affects food systems and sustainability. And most importantly, funding is no longer about one project. Funders increasingly think in terms of long-term ollaboration. So the question is no longer: 'How do I win this grant?' The question is: 'How do I become a partner that funders trust over time?.

[Audio] In many academic environments, funding is treated as a technical process. You apply, you wait, you receive or you don't. But in reality, funding is also relational. Funders prefer partners they know, partners who have delivered before, partners who communicate clearly. Imagine two equally strong proposals. One comes from a known, trusted partner. The other does not. That relationship often influences the decision. So the real strategy is not just writing proposals, but building trust..

[Audio] In agriculture, we work with different types of funders. Public funding focuses on policy priorities. International organizations focus on development and social impact. Industry focuses on application and scalability. Each of these funders expects something different. So building relationships means understanding these differences, and adapting your communication..

[Audio] Funders think differently from researchers. They are not only asking if something is scientifically interesting. They are asking if it solves a real problem. For example, soil research is valuable, but it becomes much stronger when linked to yield or sustainability. They also ask if results can scale. And finally, can this team deliver? So positioning is key..

[Audio] "One of the most common patterns I see in academic institutions is what we can call a transactional communication model. What does that mean in practice? Communication with funders begins when we need funding. We prepare an application, we may ask questions, and we engage actively. Then, during the project, communication continues because it is required. And finally, we submit the report, and communication stops. Now let's look at this from the funder's perspective. They work with many institutions, many teams, many projects. If you disappear after the project ends, you become invisible again. And two years later, when you apply again, you are not a known partner; you are just another applicant. Let me give you a concrete example. Imagine a university completes a project on testing new crop varieties. The results are strong. The report is submitted. But no one follows up. No one shares what happened the next season. No one communicates whether farmers continued using those varieties. So from the funder's perspective, the story ends there. Now imagine a different approach. Six months later, the team sends a short update: 'We continued testing in additional regions, and adoption increased.' That small step makes a huge difference. So the problem is not a lack of quality, it is a lack of continuity. And that is exactly what we need to change..

[Audio] To move away from this transactional model, we need a different way of thinking. And that is to see funding as a relationship lifecycle. Let's walk through it. First, discovery, this is where you understand the funder. What are their priorities? What problems are they trying to solve? Second, contact, building visibility. This can happen through events, networks, or informal communication. Third, a proposal, where you align your ideas with their priorities. Fourth, delivery, implementing the project professionally. And finally, stewardship, continuing the relationship after the project ends. Now here is the key insight. Most institutions focus heavily on proposal and delivery. But funders remember stewardship. That is the phase where trust is built. For example, if after a project you continue sharing insights, results, and ideas, you stay present in the funder's mind. And when the next opportunity appears, you are already in a stronger position. So this is not just a process, it is a strategy..

[Audio] Let's now focus on the most important, and most underestimated, part of the relationship: stewardship. Stewardship means that the relationship does not end when the funding ends. It continues. Let's take a practical example. Imagine you complete a project on pest management in crops. You deliver all outputs, submit the report, and everything is done. Now, most teams stop here. But a team that understands stewardship will do something different. They might send a short update a few months later: 'We continued applying the method on additional farms, and results remain consistent.' Or they might share a short case study: 'Farmers reported reduced pesticide use by 15%.' This does not require a lot of time, but it creates a completely different perception. It shows commitment. It shows continuity. And most importantly, it shows that your work has life beyond the project. That is exactly what funders are looking for..

[Audio] To make this practical, we need structure. And one of the simplest tools you can use is a relationship calendar. Instead of communicating only when required, you plan communication throughout the year. Let's take an agricultural example. In spring, you send a short update, early field results, and initial observations. In summer, you invite funders to a field day, where they can see the project in action. In autumn, you share key outcomes and lessons learned. And at the end of the year, you schedule a short meeting to discuss future ideas. This creates a rhythm. It turns communication into a continuous process, not a one-time event. And over time, this builds familiarity and trust. You move from being 'one of many applicants' to being 'a known partner'..

[Audio] Now let's talk about how we communicate. Because it is not only about frequency, it is also about quality. Effective communication is clear, honest, and focused on impact. Let me emphasize honesty. In agriculture, things do not always go as planned. Weather conditions change, field trials fail, results vary. And that is completely normal. The mistake is trying to present everything as perfect. Funders are experienced; they know that reality is complex. What they value is transparency. For example, instead of hiding a failed trial, you can say: 'Due to extreme weather conditions, results were different from expected. However, this provided valuable insights for future adaptation.' This shows professionalism. And professionalism builds trust..

[Audio] There is an important distinction between reporting and engagement. Reporting is necessary; it provides structure and accountability. But engagement goes further. Let's take a simple example. A report might say: 'Yield increased by 10%.' That is useful information. But engagement explains what that means. Was the increase consistent across all farms? Did some farmers achieve better results than others? What factors influenced success? These insights are what make the research valuable. Funders are not only interested in results, but they are also interested in understanding. And when you provide that, you position yourself as an expert partner, not just a project executor..

[Audio] In agriculture, one of the strongest ways to communicate impact is through field-based evidence. Because agriculture is practical. It is visible. It is tangible. Let me give you a simple comparison. Imagine receiving a 20-page report with data tables. Now imagine receiving a short email with photos from the field, a short explanation, and a quote from a farmer. Which one is more memorable? Exactly. Photos, videos, and real-world examples make research come alive. They make it easier for funders to understand and remember your work. And that strengthens the relationship..

[Audio] One of the most effective strategies is to actively involve funders in your ecosystem. Instead of seeing them as external observers, you invite them into your work. For example, you organize a field day. Farmers are present, students present results, and researchers explain methods. Now imagine the funder is there. They see the impact directly. They talk to stakeholders. They understand the context. This creates a completely different level of engagement. They are no longer just funding a project; they are part of the process. And that significantly strengthens the relationship..

[Audio] I would now invite you to take a moment to reflect. Think about the last three funders you worked with. Maybe it was a European project, a national grant, or an international organization. Now ask yourself: When was the last time you communicated with them, outside of formal reporting? Not a report. Not an application. Actual communication. If the answer is 'I don't remember,' that is already an important insight. Because strong relationships require continuity. And this is an opportunity to improve..

[Audio] To conclude, I would like to leave you with three key messages. First, funding follows trust. Second, long-term sustainability comes from relationships, not individual projects. And third, continuous engagement creates future opportunities. In agriculture, the challenges we address are long-term. And that means our approach to funding also needs to be long-term. Projects will always end. But relationships, if managed well, will continue. And those relationships are what will define your long-term success..

[Audio] In the next part, I will walk you through some of the best practices of fundrasing in Digital Agriculture and show you how to move from traditional project funding to a more strategic, long-term fundrasing approach..

[Audio] Digital Agriculture (DA) represents a transformative approach to agricultural production and management, integrating data-driven technologies such as artificial intelligence, remote sensing, and precision farming tools. These innovations aim to increase productivity, optimise resource use, and enhance sustainability.However, despite its strategic importance, Digital Agriculture faces persistent challenges in securing sustainable funding. Many projects remain dependent on short-term public funding and struggle to transition toward long-term investment and scaling.This presentation examines how fundraising strategies can be improved through:adoption of best practices,improved positioning of projects,and effective use of networks and alumni..

[Audio] The funding landscape for Digital Agriculture is undergoing significant change. While there is increasing recognition of the importance of digital technologies in agriculture, financial support is becoming more competitive and selective. Several trends shape this environment: Public funding is increasingly linked to policy priorities such as climate neutrality, biodiversity, and food system resilience. Private investment is growing but remains cautious due to perceived risks and long return cycles. Blended finance models are emerging as a way to combine public and private resources. As a result, projects must demonstrate not only scientific excellence but also relevance, impact, and scalability. According to the World Bank, digital technologies are essential for improving agricultural productivity and resilience, but scaling them requires significant investment and coordination. As you hear before Digital Agriculture is a high-potential but complex sector. It requires new funding models, and here are some of the reasons why: Digital Agriculture requires significant upfront investment, sensors, platforms, AI models, but returns are often delayed. Farmers are also risk-averse, which slows adoption. This creates a gap between innovation and market uptake. At the same time, the funding landscape is changing. According to AgFunder, global AgriFoodTech investment dropped from around $51 billion in 2021 to around $16 billion in 2023–2025..

[Audio] This is some of the resons why many Digital Agriculture projects struggle with funding? They have strong research output, but insufficient strategic positioning. Lack of a clearly defined and communicated value proposition. Limited engagement with funders beyond formal proposals. Fragmented stakeholder involvement and weak ecosystem integration. These challenges are frequently observed in academically strong projects. While the scientific quality is often high, projects are not always positioned in a way that aligns with funder expectations, particularly in terms of impact, scalability, and stakeholder engagement. Fundraising in Digital Agriculture should be understood as a strategic and relational process rather than a transactional activity. It requires: alignment with funder priorities and strategic agendas, continuous engagement and communication, and the ability to demonstrate long-term value and impact. Successful fundraising depends not only on the quality of the project but also on how effectively it is positioned and communicated. For the start we need to change project logic from „We develop" to „We solve".

[Audio] A key best practice is aligning project objectives with the strategic priorities of funders. For example: EU funding prioritises sustainability, climate action, and digital transformation. International organisations focus on food security and resilience. Projects that explicitly demonstrate how they contribute to these priorities are significantly more competitive. Alignment is not about changing your project, it is about framing it in a way that reflects funder priorities. Funders increasingly require clear and measurable evidence of impact. This includes: quantitative indicators (e.g. yield increase, cost reduction), environmental outcomes (e.g. reduced emissions or water use), and socio-economic benefits (e.g. improved livelihoods). Projects that provide concrete and verifiable data are more credible and more likely to secure funding. The shift toward evidence-based funding means that qualitative claims are no longer sufficient, impact must be demonstrated with data. Blended funding combines different sources of finance, including: public funding for research and early-stage development, private investment for scaling and commercialization, and impact finance for sustainability-oriented initiatives. This approach reduces financial risk and increases the likelihood of long-term sustainability. Blended finance is particularly important in Digital Agriculture, where projects often move from research to market over a long period..

[Audio] Funders typically assess projects based on several key criteria: Scalability: Which ansver the question - Can the solution be applied beyond the pilot phase? Market relevance: Is there demand for the solution? Feasibility: Can it be implemented in real-world conditions? And Risk: Are uncertainties identified and mitigated? A strong project anticipates these questions and provides clear answers. Projects that address these dimensions clearly are more attractive to both public and private funders. A well-defined value proposition is essential for attracting funding. In Digital Agriculture, this typically includes: increased productivity and efficiency, reduced use of inputs such as water, fertilizers, or energy ,improved environmental sustainability- climate resilience, and enhanced decision-making through data and analytics. The value proposition should be specific, quantified, and clearly communicated. For example TALLHEDA value include: improved skills in Digital Agriculture, stronger research ecosystems, better collaboration between academia and industry. The biggest value of TALLHEDA lies in long-term systemic change, not immediate commercial outputs. The value proposition is where science meets impact-it translates research into benefits..

[Audio] In the next few slides, we will show some good examples of Case Studies and how different fundraising models are used in Digital Agriculture. These examples show that there is no single fundraising model in Digital Agriculture. Different strategies exist depending on whether the focus is on innovation, impact, ecosystems, or market scaling..

[Audio] A strong example is John Deere. The company successfully transitioned from machinery to a digital platform provider. They have transitioned from a traditional equipment manufacturer to a provider of digital services, including precision farming tools and data analytics platforms. This shift enabled: new revenue streams, improved customer value, and scalable solutions applicable across different regions. Their value lies not only in equipment but in data services that improve productivity and efficiency. The key lesson is that value lies not only in the technology itself, but in the outcomes it enables..

[Audio] One more strong example of effective positioning in Digital Agriculture is the Climate Corporation, part of Bayer. The Climate Corporation is a digital agriculture company that examines weather, soil and field data to help farmers determine potential yield-limiting factors in their fields. Rather than focusing on individual agricultural inputs or tools, the company developed a digital platform, FieldView, that provides farmers with data-driven insights to support decision-making. This shift from product-based to service-based value creation is particularly important from a fundraising perspective. The platform offers clear, measurable benefits, such as improved yield and optimized input use, which are highly attractive to investors. Furthermore, its scalability across regions and farming systems makes it a strong example of how Digital Agriculture solutions can be positioned as investment-ready. This case illustrates that funders are more likely to support solutions that demonstrate clear value, scalability, and a sustainable business model..

[Audio] Another important example is EIT Food, which represents a fundamentally different approach to fundraising in Digital Agriculture. Instead of focusing on individual projects, EIT Food operates as an innovation ecosystem that connects universities, industry, startups, and investors. This model enables continuous collaboration, knowledge exchange, and co-investment opportunities. From a fundraising perspective, this is particularly effective because it reduces risk, increases credibility, and creates a pipeline of innovation rather than isolated outputs. It also aligns closely with current funding priorities at the European level, which increasingly favour multi-actor and ecosystem-based approaches. This case demonstrates that strong networks and institutional collaboration are not only supportive elements, but central components of successful fundraising strategies..

[Audio] Networks play a critical role in fundraising by: facilitating access to funding opportunities, enabling partnerships and collaboration, and supporting knowledge exchange. Strong networks increase visibility and credibility, which are essential for attracting funders. Also many opportunities are not publicly advertised and they emerge through professional networks. Where to look? Among your current and former partners, Industry and Startups, Researchers and Policy actors. Alumni represent a valuable but often underutilized resource. They can: act as connectors to funding bodies or industry, provide expertise and mentorship, support new project development. Maintaining long-term relationships with alumni can significantly enhance fundraising capacity. In many cases, alumni become ambassadors or facilitators of new funding opportunities. Alumni act as: donors, connectors (introducing investors) and ambassadors. Treat former participants, researchers, partners as "alumni network", because your strongest funding asset is often your existing network. If you do good work, people who have already worked with you are much more likely to support you again, either directly or by opening doors..

[Audio] Successful Digital Agriculture initiatives are typically embedded in multi-actor ecosystems involving: research institutions, industry partners, farmers, and policymakers. Such ecosystems enhance innovation, reduce risk, and increase the likelihood of successful implementation and funding. Funders increasingly support ecosystems rather than isolated projects..

[Audio] Fundraising in Digital Agriculture requires a strategic approach that combines: alignment with funder priorities, clear and measurable impact, effective positioning of projects, and strong networks and partnerships. By adopting these practices, projects can improve their competitiveness and secure more sustainable funding. Ultimately, successful fundraising is about connecting innovation with impact, and projects with the right partners..

[Audio] This part of the funding session focuses on three closely connected topics: fundraising through partnerships and sponsorships, building strategic industry partnerships for sustainable funding, and developing co-branded sponsorship opportunities in Digital Agriculture research. These topics matter because Digital Agriculture rarely advances through a single source of support. Very often, a promising initiative depends on a combination of grant funding, institutional support, strategic partners, sponsors, in-kind contributors, technology providers, pilot hosts, and broader stakeholder networks. In other words, funding in Digital Agriculture is often tied not only to money, but also to access, infrastructure, credibility, testing conditions, user communities, and visibility. That is particularly true in Digital Agriculture because this field sits between research and application. A strong concept may still need access to a farm, a demonstration environment, a software provider, a data partner, a sensor company, an agribusiness network, a local authority, or a stakeholder group that can help validate and communicate the work. Many of the resources that move an idea forward are therefore relational and ecosystem-based, not only financial. This is why partnerships and sponsorships should not be treated as secondary or occasional options. They can become structured ways of mobilising resources, building visibility, creating continuity, and supporting long-term collaboration around research and innovation. That matters even more in multi-actor innovation environments, where co-creation between research organisations, industry, and other actors often becomes the mechanism through which new solutions actually move toward use and impact. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS's knowledge co-creation work describes exactly this kind of setting, where innovation is shaped jointly by universities, research institutes, companies, and wider stakeholders rather than moving in a simple one-way direction. The practical goal here is therefore simple. It is not only to explain what partnerships and sponsorships are, but to show how they can be approached strategically. The key idea running through all three parts is that support is easier to attract when the relationship is clear, the value proposition is credible, and the collaboration is structured from the beginning..

[Audio] A useful starting point is to separate several terms that are often used interchangeably, even though they do not mean the same thing. A donor usually gives support because they believe in a mission, an educational purpose, a social objective, or the broader value of research and innovation. A sponsor usually supports an initiative in return for clearly defined benefits such as visibility, recognition, access to an audience, or association with a relevant platform. A strategic partner is different again. A strategic partner does not simply support a single activity. A strategic partner shares an interest in solving a problem, developing a capability, creating an ecosystem, or building a relationship that can continue to create value over time. There is also a category that is extremely important in Digital Agriculture and often underestimated: in-kind support. In-kind support can include equipment, software licences, data access, field access, technical support, communication support, mentoring, specialist expertise, or access to stakeholders. In the early stages of a pilot, a demonstration, or a research-to-practice activity, that kind of support can be just as valuable as direct funding. And finally, there are investors, who usually enter the conversation later, when there is already a clearer business case, a growth model, and a route toward scale. These distinctions are relevant because each type of relationship requires a different approach. A donor may care mainly about mission and impact. A sponsor may care more about visibility, audience, and positioning. A strategic partner may care most about shared objectives, capability development, and applied value. An in-kind partner may care most about practical collaboration and mutual learning. An investor will usually care about scalability, market potential, and return. University sponsorship guidance reflects exactly this logic. Sponsorship packages are typically expected to explain the initiative clearly, define sponsorship levels and benefits, and show what marketing opportunity, access, audience reach, or return value the sponsor may receive. That is important because sponsorship is not a vague expression of support. It is a structured exchange. At the same time, university policies also make clear that sponsorship does not automatically entitle a sponsor to use university names, logos, or marks, and that recognition must not become endorsement. That distinction is especially relevant in research and education settings, where independence and institutional credibility must remain visible..

[Audio] Once these categories are clear, the next principle becomes much easier to understand: fundraising through partnerships and sponsorships is not simply about asking for support. It is about designing an exchange of value that makes sense to both sides. This point is central because many academic or project-based teams naturally begin from their own need. They may say that an event needs funding, a programme needs support, or a research activity needs resources. But the external organisation usually sees the situation from a different angle. It asks a different set of questions. Why should this matter to us? What do we gain by being part of it? Does it connect with our strategy, our audience, our innovation agenda, our recruitment goals, our sustainability positioning, or our place in the wider ecosystem? This is where ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT's co-creation perspective is especially useful. It is relevant because it moves beyond the idea that universities create knowledge and companies simply receive it. Instead, it frames collaboration as a joint process that may involve shared objectives, complementary expertise, tacit knowledge exchange, and different forms of value creation. ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT also notes that some co-creation initiatives focus on early agenda-setting and mission development, while others focus on delivery, application, or scale-up. That matters because a Digital Agriculture partnership does not need to begin as a large or fully formalised relationship. It may start with a shared problem, a pilot, a demonstration, or a joint learning activity, and only later grow into a broader funding and collaboration relationship. A much stronger starting question, then, is not "Who can pay for this?" but "Who may see enough value in this to become part of it?" That value may take several forms. It may be access to students and future talent. It may be association with innovation, sustainability, or education. It may be participation in a credible platform where researchers, practitioners, and local actors meet. It may be access to pilots, field demonstrations, or real use cases. It may be visibility in a space where the organisation wants to be recognised. Or it may be an opportunity to contribute technology, expertise, or infrastructure while learning from the process. This way of thinking changes the tone of the relationship. The conversation is no longer framed as a request for help. It becomes a structured discussion about why collaboration could be meaningful. And when support is built on clear mutual value, it is much more likely to continue beyond one event, one grant, or one short-term activity. In that sense, partnership-based fundraising is not only a funding mechanism. It is also a relationship-building mechanism and, in many cases, an ecosystem-building mechanism..

[Audio] At this point, one practical question usually appears very quickly: where should opportunities for partnerships and sponsorships actually be sought? A useful answer starts with the logic of actor mapping. Both ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT's co-creation work and FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS's agrifood partnership methodology support the idea that strong collaboration begins by identifying the relevant actors in the wider ecosystem rather than by approaching organisations at random. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS's toolkit is especially helpful because it treats partnership development as a process that begins with understanding the chain, the actors, the incentives, and the opportunities for collaboration. That is highly relevant in Digital Agriculture because the field involves multiple connected actors rather than one simple buyer-seller relationship. In practice, useful entry points often include existing project partners, agritech companies already involved in demonstrations or applied services, Digital Innovation Hubs, local or regional innovation organisations, farmer associations, cooperatives, chambers or cluster organisations, public authorities active in agriculture or innovation, technology transfer offices, incubators, accelerators, and exhibitors or speakers at sector events. Another important route is to look at who is already active in the ecosystem around testing, validation, advisory services, digital extension, sustainability communication, or young talent development. Those actors are often much closer to a potential partnership than organisations selected only because they are large or well known. Within TALLHEDA, one practical example of this kind of platform is the Virtual Innovation Hub. Its role is not limited to storing project material. It also supports specialised workshops, stakeholder exchange, and visibility for opportunities such as funding calls, training offers, and wider collaboration links. It is also intended to keep recorded training content available over time, which strengthens continuity beyond a single event or seminar. In that sense, the VIH is useful not only as a communication tool, but as a space where visibility, engagement, and partnership discovery can reinforce each other. So, when looking for funding-related opportunities in this area, it is often more productive to ask three concrete questions. Which actors already operate close to the problem? Which actors already benefit from being associated with innovation in this field? And which actors have something meaningful to contribute besides money? Very often, the most promising opportunities emerge where those three answers overlap..

[Audio] Strategic industry partnerships for sustainable funding do not depend only on good contacts or goodwill. They depend on clear partner selection, credible alignment of interests, and a structured path from first collaboration to longer-term value creation. This is exactly why several established frameworks are useful here, especially Responsible Partnering, ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT's co-creation framework, and FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS's agrifood partnership approach. One important reference is Responsible Partnering, developed by the European University Association together with partners from industry and research organisations. This handbook is especially relevant because it was designed specifically to improve collaborative research and knowledge transfer between public research organisations and companies. It describes responsible partnering as a voluntary programme intended to improve the organisation, management, and overall effectiveness of joint research and strategic knowledge-transfer activities. It also emphasises sustainable win-win situations supported by organisational strategy and professional management. That is directly relevant here, because sustainable funding rarely comes from improvised contacts. It usually comes from relationships that are intentionally selected, designed, and managed. A second reference is again ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT's co-creation framework. It is relevant because Digital Agriculture partnerships are often multi-actor rather than purely bilateral. ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT notes that actors may be selected using criteria such as value-generation potential, scale-up potential, and relational proximity based on previous interactions. This matters because not every visible company or stakeholder is automatically the right strategic partner. The strongest partner is not simply the one with the largest resources. It is the one whose capabilities, incentives, and ecosystem position make the collaboration more likely to work and to grow. A third reference is FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS's methodological toolkit for promoting business partnerships in agrifood chains. This is particularly useful because it offers an agriculture-specific logic. It treats partnerships as processes that involve diagnosis, identification of common interests, collaborative workshops, monitoring progress, and evaluation. In other words, it does not present partnership as a single agreement. It presents it as a structured path from first alignment to more mature cooperation. That is especially relevant in Digital Agriculture because many promising relationships begin small and develop gradually through pilots, demonstrations, or carefully designed joint activities. Taken together, these methods suggest a practical message. Strategic industry partnerships should not be built only around immediate funding gaps. They should be built by identifying where mutual value is strongest, where collaboration is realistic in practice, and where the relationship has room to evolve into something more durable over time..

[Audio] A practical way to apply that logic is through partner mapping. Partner mapping matters because sustainable funding rarely comes from approaching every possible organisation. It comes from approaching the right organisations for the right reasons. And to do that well, the criteria need to be explicit. One useful way to structure partner mapping is through five questions. The first question is strategic fit. Does this organisation have a meaningful connection to the topic? In Digital Agriculture, that may include precision farming, digital advisory technologies, robotics, climate-smart farming, irrigation, data use, traceability, or agritech entrepreneurship. This question matters because if the thematic fit is weak, the relationship will usually remain superficial. The second question is problem fit. What actual challenge, ambition, or opportunity might this organisation address through the relationship? Perhaps it wants visibility in innovation spaces. Perhaps it wants access to future talent. Perhaps it needs pilot environments, better understanding of users, sustainability positioning, or stronger links with the research community. This question is relevant because partnerships become stronger when they solve something concrete for both sides. The third question is capability fit. What can each side realistically contribute? One organisation may contribute funding. Another may contribute devices, software, field access, communication channels, or technical support. Another may contribute networks or policy links. This question matters because strategic partnerships are not just about who can sponsor a logo placement. They are about who can strengthen the initiative in ways that matter. The fourth question is scale potential. If the first collaboration works, can the relationship grow? ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT explicitly links partner selection to the potential to generate value and scale up. This is relevant because sustainable funding depends on the ability to move from a first interaction to a broader platform, a pilot portfolio, recurring sponsorship, or a joint proposal pathway. The fifth question is reputational and governance fit. Is the organisation compatible with the mission, values, and credibility of the institution or project? Could the relationship create problems related to conflict of interest, dependence, or public perception? This question is particularly important in research settings because not every technically useful partner is automatically a strategically appropriate partner. A simple exercise can make this process more concrete. For each priority target, write one sentence answering two linked questions: why is this organisation relevant to the initiative, and why is the initiative relevant to that organisation? If that sentence cannot be written clearly, the partnership logic is probably not ready yet. That kind of clarity is not a formality. It is the beginning of strategic positioning, and Responsible Partnering is built around exactly that kind of explicit thinking about fit, roles, and long-term effectiveness..

[Audio] Once promising partners have been identified, the next step is to move from mapping to relationship design. A phased model is especially helpful here. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS's agrifood partnership toolkit is useful because it shows that partnerships are normally built through a sequence rather than through a single pitch. It includes initial chain mapping, methods for identifying common interests, partnership-identification workshops, collaborative or negotiation workshops, pilot-project design, monitoring progress, and partnership evaluation. This is highly relevant for Digital Agriculture because these projects often involve several interconnected actors rather than one straightforward commercial exchange. A practical adaptation of this model for Digital Agriculture can be described in five stages. The first stage is diagnosis. Before proposing a formal partnership, it is useful to understand the context, the stakeholders, the chain, and the incentives. In Digital Agriculture, this may involve understanding who develops the technology, who adopts it, who validates it, who communicates it, and who influences uptake. That stage matters because partnerships fail quickly when the surrounding system is poorly understood. The second stage is alignment. Here the purpose is to identify common interests. What does each side actually want? Where is there overlap? Where is the shared value? This stage matters because many partnerships weaken early when one side wants visibility, the other wants research depth, and nobody says so clearly at the start. The third stage is collaborative design. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS refers to collaborative workshops as a way of developing partnerships through discussion of shared problems and possible solutions. In a Digital Agriculture setting, this may mean co-designing a student challenge, a field demonstration, a knowledge series, a pilot, or a stakeholder event around a clearly defined topic. That is relevant because co-designed activities are usually stronger than rigid offers developed in isolation. The fourth stage is piloting. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS explicitly recommends starting with a pilot project in order to test feasibility, reduce risk, and build cooperation and trust. It also notes that a good pilot should demonstrate the potential of larger-scale collaboration, allow all parties to evaluate whether to continue, provide clear measures of success, and include pre-determined check-in points and an end date. This is extremely relevant to sustainable funding, because a smaller first collaboration is often the foundation for a larger one later. And the fifth stage is expansion. After the pilot, the question becomes whether the relationship can move into something more durable: a recurring programme, a broader sponsorship arrangement, an industry-supported platform, a co-developed proposal, or a longer-term innovation ecosystem. This phased logic matters because it replaces vague enthusiasm with a process that can actually be managed. It also makes it easier to reduce risk on both sides, which is often one of the conditions for moving from first contact to strategic partnership..

[Audio] Strategic partnerships become sustainable funding relationships only when they are managed properly after the first agreement. That point is often underestimated. A team may succeed in attracting a sponsor, a partner, or a supporting company for one activity, but if the relationship is not stewarded well, it may stop there. Sustainable funding does not come only from securing the first yes. It comes from creating a relationship that generates reasons to continue. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS's partnership toolkit is again useful here because it treats monitoring and evaluation as integral parts of partnership development, not as optional add-ons. It recommends regularly scheduled meetings to assess satisfaction, progress, problems, and new opportunities. It also asks key questions such as whether goals are being achieved, whether goals have changed, whether partners are satisfied with progress, and what needs to change to ensure continued support. That is highly relevant because long-term support depends not only on outputs but also on the quality of the process. The same toolkit also explains that partnership evaluation should include both achievements and processes. It should assess progress toward objectives, but also how the partnership operates in terms of communication, management, leadership, and the synergies created through mutual knowledge and complementary resources. This is an important idea, because a partnership can underperform either because the objectives were unrealistic or because the collaboration itself was poorly managed. In both cases, sustainable funding will weaken unless those problems are identified early. In practical terms, four habits are especially useful here. The first is structured communication. Every meaningful partnership should have named contact points, expected touchpoints, and regular updates. The second is disciplined benefit delivery. If a sponsor was promised visibility, that visibility must be delivered professionally. If a partner expected pilot access or stakeholder interaction, that should happen as agreed. The third is progression planning. After each activity, it helps to ask: what is the next meaningful step? Could this sponsor support a second event? Could this partner join a pilot? Could the collaboration evolve into a larger platform or proposal? The fourth is lightweight documentation. Short updates, one-page recaps, shared calendars, and simple progress summaries often make a significant difference. They help partners see that the relationship is active, organised, and worth continuing. This is why sustainable funding should be understood as relationship continuity, not only budget continuity. A well-managed relationship creates trust, and trust increases the probability of renewal, expansion, and strategic relevance. In that sense, partnership stewardship is not a soft skill around fundraising. It is part of the funding strategy itself..

[Audio] Co-branded sponsorship opportunities become much easier to develop when the support request is attached to a specific and credible asset. This matters because sponsors usually respond much better to concrete, well-designed opportunities than to broad requests. In practice, support becomes easier to mobilise when it is attached to something specific, visible, and understandable that a sponsor can support and from which the sponsor can receive legitimate recognition or access. In Digital Agriculture research, those sponsorable assets can take many forms. They may include an innovation day, a field-demonstration series, a thematic webinar series, a student challenge, an award for digital solutions, a showcase of pilot projects, a stakeholder roundtable, a demonstration plot, or a research-to-practice event. The format matters because sponsors generally do not support topics. They support concrete vehicles through which the association becomes visible and meaningful. This is one place where the TALLHEDA Virtual Innovation Hub can strengthen the logic of the offer. A webinar series, challenge, showcase, or stakeholder event becomes more attractive when it is not presented as an isolated activity, but as part of a broader knowledge and engagement environment. In the TALLHEDA documents, the VIH is not described only as a storage space. It is described as a virtual hub that can contain project material, organise specialised workshops, support stakeholder exchange, and provide visibility to funding and training opportunities. That makes it a relevant example of how a project platform can extend the life and reach of a sponsor-supported activity. Instead of saying that a sponsor will support a one-off session, it becomes possible to say that the sponsor will be associated with a wider environment for learning, dialogue, and innovation visibility. That shift is important because sponsors often look for continuity, not only one appearance. A co-branded activity that sits inside a broader, credible, and ongoing environment may therefore be more appealing than an isolated intervention with no lasting visibility or follow-up..

[Audio] To make co-branded sponsorship opportunities more usable, it helps to think in terms of package design. A package matters because it turns a vague funding conversation into a clear offer. University sponsorship toolkits recommend that sponsorship documents include a detailed description of the event or initiative, all sponsorship levels and the benefits for each level, and information on the marketing opportunity, access, audience, and return value that the event can offer to a company. That guidance is especially useful in Digital Agriculture because the field often brings together multiple audiences at the same time: students, researchers, agritech companies, farmers, consultants, public bodies, and innovation intermediaries. A practical way to design packages is to create several levels of involvement. For example, there may be a strategic sponsor, a thematic sponsor, a demo sponsor, or a talent sponsor. The point is not to create many labels. The point is to make each level correspond to a real and distinct benefit mix. Some co-branded opportunities may focus on visibility. These might include logo presence, acknowledgement on event materials, website mention, or presence in recap communications. Other opportunities may focus on access. These might include attendance, networking participation, employer-branding access, jury participation, or a defined role in a panel or discussion. Still others may focus on contribution. A technology company, for example, may support a field demonstration by providing equipment, licences, or technical expertise, while being recognised as a supporting demo partner. This logic is especially relevant in Digital Agriculture because the field naturally lends itself to applied formats. A company working on sensing, irrigation, analytics, traceability, or farm-management software may see more value in supporting a live demonstration or challenge than in a generic branding opportunity. A local agribusiness actor may see value in association with practical innovation and talent development. A professional network may value involvement in a credible knowledge-sharing series. To make the offer stronger, it helps to describe not only the benefit but also the reason the benefit matters. If a sponsor receives recognition in a webinar series, the meaningful point is not only logo placement. The meaningful point is association with a credible educational or innovation platform in a strategically important field. If a sponsor supports a student challenge, the value is not only visibility. It is also access to emerging talent and association with future-oriented problem solving. If a sponsor supports a field demonstration, the value is not only presence. It is also association with application, testing, and practical credibility. So the quality of the package does not depend only on design. It depends on how clearly the support opportunity is linked to meaningful value for the sponsor and meaningful integrity for the institution..

[Audio] Co-branding and sponsorship can be very effective, but only when clear safeguards are in place. This matters because higher education and research institutions cannot treat sponsorship as ordinary commercial promotion. University policies are very clear that sponsorship must not be confused with endorsement. The University at Buffalo policy, for example, states that sponsorship of a university programme, activity, or event does not automatically give the sponsor the right to use university trademarks, names, or logos, and that sponsor use of university marks is limited to factual statements and must not appear as an endorsement or implied endorsement by the university. The same policy also states that the university does not endorse, directly or by implication, the products, services, or ideas of a sponsor. This is highly relevant to Digital Agriculture research, where the line between legitimate recognition and perceived product endorsement can become blurred if branding is not handled carefully. This means that every co-branded opportunity should be checked against a short set of questions. Is the sponsor mission-compatible? Is the support clearly linked to a defined activity? Are the benefits transparent and proportionate? Is academic independence protected? Are branding and logo uses explicitly agreed? Is endorsement avoided? And if data, technology, pilots, or results are involved, are roles, rights, and communication boundaries clear? These safeguards also matter in the TALLHEDA environment, because the Grant Agreement and project description place clear emphasis on stakeholder engagement, sustainability, visibility, collaboration, and the Innovation Hub, while also requiring proper handling of communication, data, and institutional responsibilities. In practical terms, that means a sponsor-supported activity can strengthen the ecosystem only if it remains well governed and aligned with the project's values and obligations. The strongest support relationships are therefore not simply the ones that bring resources. They are the ones in which value is clear, governance is sound, and the collaboration can grow without weakening independence or credibility. In Digital Agriculture, where innovation depends on the successful interaction of research, technology, users, and ecosystems, that is not a minor issue. It is one of the conditions for sustainable progress..

questions?. [image]. TRANSFORMING ACCESS TO EXCELLENCE WITH SUCCESSFUL ALLIANCES OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIGITAL AGRICULTURE.

thank you!.

TALLHEDA has received funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 101136578. Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them..